Atheist vs. Agnostic

Originally posted by amannion
Evolution. Where else?

LOL
I believe some people raise evolution to a religion and I'd like that
avoided too. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Actually, it's the agnostic position which is untennable.

If you believe in God, you're a theist.

If you don't, you're an atheist.

There is no middle ground, no one "kinda" believes in God. They either do, or they don't.

We agree, imagine that! 🙂
Kelly

If agnosticism is defined in terms of “Pyrrhonic” skepticism (ala Sextus Empiricus), it would be an intellectually valid position when arguments for and against are seen as equipollent, making it reasonable to suspend judgment. “I don’t know” is an intellectually honest answer.

Different folks will, of course, under any given definition of G, argue about the merit of such arguments.

Pragmatically, such a “Sextian” agnostic would likely conduct their lives in the same way as a weak atheist—i.e., as if ~G.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
So you only see the first two as valid positions:

X is true
X is not true
X is unknown
X is unknowable

That's an interesting perspective you have there.

No, all four are tenable in terms of something which is knowable in a factual manner. However, that's not what we're talking about, we're actually discussing an opinion. And a person may say "we can never know", but they actually either hold sway on either "I believe" or "I don't believe".

Originally posted by vistesd
If agnosticism is defined in terms of “Pyrrhonic” skepticism (ala Sextus Empiricus), it would be an intellectually valid position when arguments for and against are seen as equipollent, making it reasonable to suspend judgment. “I don’t know” is an intellectually honest answer.

Different folks will, of course, under any given definition of G, argue about ...[text shortened]... ian” agnostic would likely conduct their lives in the same way as a weak atheist—i.e., as if ~G.

So what is the difference between how a weak atheist and a weak
theist if you can have one or the other in terms of how they act?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So what is the difference between how a weak atheist and a weak
theist if you can have one or the other in terms of how they act?
Kelly

I never heard the phrase “weak theist.” I am imagining that that would be someone who chooses to believe in a god simply because there is no sufficient evidence for there being no god (small “g” for generality)? That would seem to mean—contra rwingett—that people are born as implicit theists?

Or do you mean that a skeptic/agnostic such as I described might choose to live as if there were god(s). Sextus, I think, allowed for such skeptics to engage in religious rituals and practices for pragmatic reasons—social, aesthetic, etc.—but that would still be absent any belief commitment at all.

This kind of skeptic does not say, “I doubt that G”—he says, “It can be argued either way sufficiently that I suspend judgment.” In terms of belief about philosophical and religious questions, the “Sextian” skeptic lives in a mode of continuing inquiry.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, all four are tenable in terms of something which is knowable in a factual manner. However, that's not what we're talking about, we're actually discussing an opinion. And a person may say "we can never know", but they actually either hold sway on either "I believe" or "I don't believe".

Nice try. So you're saying that "I don't know" is not a valid position for anything that is not knowable in a factual manner? You might want to rethink this.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Nice try.

Why only "nice try"?

The theist no more "knows" that God exists than the atheist "knows" he doesn't. It's belief, not factual knowledge. I know my kitchen sink exists. I don't need to believe in it. I can go up and look at it and touch it, I can feel the cold metal.

No-one can do that with God. He's undetectable.

All we are left with is belief. Belief cannot be "don't know", you either believe, or you don't.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Why only "nice try"?

The theist no more "knows" that God exists than the atheist "knows" he doesn't. It's belief, not factual knowledge. I know my kitchen sink exists. I don't need to believe in it. I can go up and look at it and touch it, I can feel the cold metal.

No-one can do that with God. He's undetectable.

All we are left with is belief. Belief cannot be "don't know", you either believe, or you don't.

Mostly because I was at a loss for words 🙂 If anything is untenable, it's your position on this.

Sorry, but it's my belief that this is unknowable.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Mostly because I was at a loss for words 🙂 If anything is untenable, it's your position on this.

Sorry, but it's my belief that this is unknowable.

UnKNOWable, yes.

Unbelieveable? I'd say "yes" to that too. I suspect your position would be different to mine.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Nice try. So you're saying that "I don't know" is not a valid position for anything that is not knowable in a factual manner? You might want to rethink this.

G or ~G. If one honestly says the answer is unknowable, one is still going to live as if either G or ~G.

To use rwingett’s phrases: if one finds the arguments both for and against G to be insufficient, relative to one another, to make an explicit intellectual decision, one might honestly say, “I don’t know.” Explicitly they are an agnostic/skeptic. Implicitly, however, they will act as if either G or ~G. They will either pray to a god, or they won’t; they will act out of the possibility for an individual after-life, or they won’t; etc., etc.

Intellectually, I think there are conditions under which the claim of agnosticism (“I don’t know” ) can be a valid one. Pragmatically, either theism or atheism “holds sway” (as Scotty put it) in how they live their lives.

EDIT: Saw Scotty's post re knowing versus believing. As an assent to a proposition (either G or ~G) I think we're saying pretty much the same thing. One de facto either chooses to believe or not believe, in the case of an unknowable. That is, by how I live my life, I am either assenting to the proposition G, or I am not.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
UnKNOWable, yes.

Unbelieveable? I'd say "yes" to that too. I suspect your position would be different to mine.

You're right. It is different than yours. It's like the following.

agnostic [noun] someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists.

Think OUTSIDE the box 🙂

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You're right. It is different than yours. It's like the following.

agnostic [noun] someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists.

By that definition, everyone is an agnostic, there are no other positions.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
By that definition, everyone is an agnostic, there are no other positions.

I don't believe that that's true either. People believe what they believe.

Some believe that God exists.
Some believe that God doesn't exist.
Some don't know if God exists.
Some believe that the existence of God is unknowable.

Go figure.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I don't believe that that's true either. People believe what they believe.

Some believe that God exists.
Some believe that God doesn't exist.
Some don't know if God exists.
Some believe that the existence of God is unknowable.

Go figure.

Now you are coming back to belief again!

Belief and factual knowledge are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!


[edit; the definition talked of factual knowledge, not belief.]